A good artical on the right wing media

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Spitz

Sicc OG
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#1
A good artical on the media coverage of the DNC and a lil beyond

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Reading the Script
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 3, 2004






ARTICLE TOOLS


E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles








Columnist Page: Paul Krugman
Forum: Discuss This Column

E-mail: [email protected]








TIMES NEWS TRACKER



Topics
Alerts

Television




Conventions and Conferences




Presidential Elections (US)








message to my fellow journalists: check out media watch sites like campaigndesk.org, mediamatters.org and dailyhowler.com. It's good to see ourselves as others see us. I've been finding The Daily Howler's concept of a media "script," a story line that shapes coverage, often in the teeth of the evidence, particularly helpful in understanding cable news.

For example, last summer, when growth briefly broke into a gallop, cable news decided that the economy was booming. The gallop soon slowed to a trot, and then to a walk. But judging from the mail I recently got after writing about the slowing economy, the script never changed; many readers angrily insisted that my numbers disagreed with everything they had seen on TV.

If you really want to see cable news scripts in action, look at the coverage of the Democratic convention.

Commercial broadcast TV covered only one hour a night. We'll see whether the Republicans get equal treatment. C-Span, on the other hand, provided comprehensive, commentary-free coverage. But many people watched the convention on cable news channels - and what they saw was shaped by a script portraying Democrats as angry Bush-haters who disdain the military.

If that sounds like a script written by the Republicans, it is. As the movie "Outfoxed" makes clear, Fox News is for all practical purposes a G.O.P. propaganda agency. A now-famous poll showed that Fox viewers were more likely than those who get their news elsewhere to believe that evidence of Saddam-Qaeda links has been found, that W.M.D. had been located and that most of the world supported the Iraq war.

CNN used to be different, but Campaign Desk, which is run by The Columbia Journalism Review, concluded after reviewing convention coverage that CNN "has stooped to slavish imitation of Fox's most dubious ploys and policies." Seconds after John Kerry's speech, CNN gave Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, the opportunity to bash the candidate. Will Terry McAuliffe be given the same opportunity right after President Bush speaks?

Commentators worked hard to spin scenes that didn't fit the script. Some simply saw what they wanted to see. On Fox, Michael Barone asserted that conventioneers cheered when Mr. Kerry criticized President Bush but were silent when he called for military strength. Check out the video clips at Media Matters; there was tumultuous cheering when Mr. Kerry talked about a strong America.

Another technique, pervasive on both Fox and CNN, was to echo Republican claims of an "extreme makeover" - the assertion that what viewers were seeing wasn't the true face of the party. (Apparently all those admirals, generals and decorated veterans were ringers.)

It will probably be easier to make a comparable case in New York, where the Republicans are expected to feature an array of moderate, pro-choice speakers and keep Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay under wraps. But in Boston, it took creativity to portray the delegates as being out of the mainstream. For example, Bill Schneider at CNN claimed that according to a New York Times/CBS News poll, 75 percent of the delegates favor "abortion on demand" - which exaggerated the poll's real finding, which is that 75 percent opposed stricter limits than we now have.

But the real power of a script is the way it can retroactively change the story about what happened.

On Thursday night, Mr. Kerry's speech was a palpable hit. A focus group organized by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, found it impressive and persuasive. Even pro-Bush commentators conceded, at first, that it had gone over well.

But a terrorism alert is already blotting out memories of last week. Although there is now a long history of alerts with remarkably convenient political timing, and Tom Ridge politicized the announcement by using the occasion to praise "the president's leadership in the war against terror," this one may be based on real information. Regardless, it gives the usual suspects a breathing space; once calm returns, don't be surprised if some of those same commentators begin describing the ineffective speech they expected (and hoped) to see, not the one they actually saw.

Luckily, in this age of the Internet it's possible to bypass the filter. At c-span.org, you can find transcripts and videos of all the speeches. I'd urge everyone to watch Mr. Kerry and others for yourself, and make your own judgment.
 

Spitz

Sicc OG
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#2
heres another


Distortions of post-DNC polls: Hannity on Bush's "significant lead"; NRO's Moran on Kerry "thud"; FOX's Hill wrong on Newsweek poll



Since last week's Democratic National Convention, various polls sought to measure the effect of the four-day event on the election horse race and public opinion more broadly. Several polls showed Senator John Kerry achieving a small bounce, while one showed President George W. Bush gaining ground. But you wouldn't know it from the rampant distortions of polling data by pundits and conservative media outlets. With several media outlets focusing on the Gallup poll -- the only poll to show any bounce for Bush -- and downplaying and distorting those with positive results for Kerry, viewers have been given a false impression of post-Democratic convention public opinion of the presidential candidates.

Following is a summary of the various polls:

ABC News/Washington Post

Registered voters: 50 percent for Kerry v. 44 percent for Bush (6 point Kerry bounce)

Likely voters: 49 percent for Kerry v. 47 percent for Bush (8 point Kerry bounce)

Newsweek

Registered voters: 49 percent for Kerry v. 42 percent for Bush (4 point Kerry bounce)

CBS News

Registered voters: 48 percent for Kerry v. 43 percent for Bush (2 point Kerry bounce)

USA Today/CNN/Gallup

Registered voters: 50 percent for Kerry v. 47 percent for Bush (1 point Bush bounce)

Likely voters: 47 percent for Kerry v. 50 percent for Bush (5 point Bush bounce)

FOX's Cameron and Wilson played up Gallup, played down the rest

On the August 2 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, FOX's reporters and anchors interpreted the ambiguous, sometimes conflicting poll data as a clear victory for Bush. In his report from the Kerry campaign, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron labeled Kerry's two-point bounce in an ABC News/Washington Post poll "insignificant" while noting that "the Gallup poll, the most respected survey that's tracked convention bounces the longest, says Kerry got nothing. And Bush still leads 50-46 percent."

Cameron also offered his historical take on the data: "Historically, no challenger has ever actually won the presidency with little or no bounce coming out his convention." But while Cameron relied on Gallup's historical poll data for this observation, he neglected to note that Gallup's editor-in-chief, Frank Newport, told The New York Times that the unusual circumstances of this campaign -- including a highly polarized electorate and unprecedented pre-convention TV advertising -- might render public opinion resistant to this historical trend:

History does predict that there will be a bounce. ... But we've seen such unusual stability in the poll numbers so far this year, and we do know that people are remarkably more focused on the race this year than they have been in previous elections. So, who knows? There is certainly the possibility that the bounce this year will be less than history would suggest.

Instead, Cameron offered a wholesale endorsement of the Republican spin on the issue: "Now coming out of the convention, it's Republicans who are accurately saying it's Kerry who is weaker than any challenger in history with zero to little bounce at all."

On the FOX All-Star Panel at the end of Special Report, substitute host Brian Wilson (who was filling in for regular host Brit Hume) took Cameron's pro-Republican spin a step further. Wilson introduced a discussion of the post-convention polls by again briefly summarizing the various polls before focusing on Gallup, the poll most favorable to Bush: "Let's move on to the Gallup poll, which is a very respected poll. This one is really surprising a lot of people, because it's pretty good if your opponent holds a convention and you get the bounce. And that appears to be what happened in this particular poll." After finishing his summary, Wilson concluded, "Well, I think the one thing we can say is no substantial jump anywhere, and in at least one respected poll, the Bush team actually took a bounce." So according to Wilson, three polls indicating a two- to eight-point improvement for Kerry is "not substantial," but one "very respected poll" with a five-point improvement for Bush is "a bounce."

Washington Times, National Review cited only worst poll for Kerry to observe "silent bounce," "dull thud"

Conservative print and Internet outlets followed a similar pattern. A Washington Times op-ed titled "The silent 'bounce'" cited only the Gallup poll in support of its assertion that "John Kerry became the first presidential candidate since 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern to fail to get a bounce in the Gallup Poll among likely voters following a Democratic or Republican national convention."

In a National Review Online article titled "Thud," NRO contributor Robert Moran (who is "vice president at Republican polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates") used figures from the Gallup poll to gird his contention that "that dull thud you hear may be the John Kerry flop of 2004." Without mentioning any other polls, Moran concluded, "Did the Kerry campaign get a bounce for its product? At this point, the answer appears to be no."

FOX & Friends hosts mischaracterized polls to show Kerry slipping

The Gallup Poll's Newport appeared on FOX & Friends on August 1 to explain that the "best way to characterize" his organization's new poll is to say it shows "no change." The show's hosts ignored his advice, claiming later in the same program -- less than an hour after Newport appeared -- that the most recent Gallup poll shows a negative trend for the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign. Co-host Steve Doocy described an on-screen graphic of the poll's overall results showing 50 percent of likely voters supporting Bush-Cheney '04 and 47 percent supporting Kerry-Edwards '04, compared with a 47-49 Republican-Democrat split two weeks earlier. Doocy used this poll as evidence that Kerry experienced a "five-point negative bounce, from one ahead to four behind," and asked, "So what went wrong for Mr. Kerry?"

Co-host E.D. Hill agreed with Doocy's mischaracterization of the Gallup poll and, as additional evidence of Kerry's failure to achieve a convention bounce, offered a separate Newsweek poll that actually showed the opposite. The Newsweek poll, conducted July 29 through July 30 (both before and after Kerry's convention speech) showed a three-point increase in Kerry's lead, from a 47 percent-44 percent Kerry advantage three weeks earlier, to a 49-42 lead. But Hill falsely claimed, "[E]ven though Kerry is still leading in the Newsweek poll, he lost points and people are kind of shocked by that."

Hannity misrepresented Iraq poll results, skewed public opinion of Bush on national security issues


During an August 2 interview with Kerry campaign spokesperson Michael Meehan, FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes co-host Sean Hannity distorted the new Washington Post/ABC News Election 2004 poll, falsely asserting, "[O]n the war in Iraq, on the war on terror, and issues of national security, by far the president has a significant lead over Kerry."

According to that poll, however, Kerry has a two-point lead (48 percent to 46 percent) on the following question: "Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq"; meanwhile, Bush holds a three-point lead (48 percent to 45 percent) on this question: "Who do you trust to do a better job handling the US campaign against terrorism?" (Results are within the statistical margin of error.) The Washington Post/ABC News poll also indicates that while Bush holds a three-point lead (48 percent to 45 percent) on who "will make the country safer and more secure" (also within the margin of error), Kerry leads by five points (48 percent to 43 percent) on who will do better in "improving the U.S. intelligence agencies" and by eight points (52 percent to 44 percent) on who is "better qualified to be commander in chief of the U.S. military" -- both exceeding the margin of error.

Hotline editor Chuck Todd misrepresented public trust in Bush

On MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, editor-in-chief of National Journal's The Hotline, claimed, without citing any support for the assertion, that the American people "believe their president." In fact, recent polling data suggests otherwise.

Asked by host Chris Matthews whether there is a "Michael Moore factor running in the country right now?" Todd replied, "I don't think so. I think people -- Democrats forget, people, particularly in the middle, believe their government. They believe their president. They may not agree with him, but they believe their president."

However, the above-mentioned Washington Post poll indicates that only 41 percent of the American public believe that Bush is "honest and trustworthy," compared with 47 percent who believe that Kerry is "honest and trustworthy." The new CBS News poll indicates that 39 percent of Americans believe Bush has "more honesty and integrity compared to others in public life" (compared with 38 percent who believe that of Kerry), with 25 percent stating Bush has less honesty and integrity than other public figures (compared with 14 percent who believe that of Kerry). In the Gallup poll referenced above, Bush rated at 43 percent (compared with Kerry's 48 percent) on whether he is "honest and trustworthy." In the Gallup poll that included an additional day of survey data (August 1), which was released on the evening of August 2, Bush also rated below Kerry (44 percent, compared with Kerry's 46 percent).

— J.C., A.S., G.W., & A.Z.
 

Spitz

Sicc OG
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#3
I saved the best for last


33 internal FOX editorial memos reviewed by MMFA reveal FOX News Channel's inner workings




FOX news exec John Moody on 9-11 Commission:

"Do not turn this into Watergate"

Moody on George W. Bush:

"His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day"

Moody on Sen. John Kerry:

"starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record"

Documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald's new film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which interviews former FOX employees to provide "an in-depth look at Fox News [Channel] and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know," premiered at the New School University in New York on July 13. The FOX News Channel markets itself as "fair and balanced," promising that "We report. You decide."

As The Washington Post reported on July 11, Greenwald's film features "a handful of memos from a top FOX executive that appear to suggest tilting the news." Media Matters for America has analyzed 33 such internal FOX memos, issued by FOX News Senior Vice President, News Editorial John Moody and Los Angeles Bureau Chief Ken LaCoste between May 9 and June 3, 2003 and March 12 and May 5, 2004.

In the memos, some of which appear in Outfoxed, Moody instructs employees on the approach to take on particular stories. His instructions reflect a clear interest in furthering a conservative agenda and in supporting the Bush administration. The Post quoted Larry Johnson, identified by the paper as "a former part-time Fox commentator who appears in the film," describing the Moody memos as "talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray." On July 13, Salon.com reviewed the film, and provided "some of the most notable excerpts" from the memos, referred to as "marching orders" by Jon DuPre, whom Salon identifies as "formerly of Fox News."

In an interview with the Post, Moody rejected "the implication that I'm controlling the news coverage" and said, "People are free to call me or message me and say, 'I think you're off base.' Sometimes I take the advice, sometimes I don't."

The following is a sample of reporting instructions issued by Moody to the FOX News staff.

Moody on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal:

[T]he pictures from Abu Graeb [sic] prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective (5/5/04).

Moody on the war in Iraq:

As is often the case, the real news is [sic] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy. The creation of a defense ministry, which will be run by Iraqis, is a major step forward in the country's redevelopment. Let's look at that, as well as the deaths of a US soldier in a roadside bombing (3/25/04).

Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group (4/4/04).

The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).

If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance (4/22/04).

The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved (4/4/04).

[L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04).

Moody on abortion:

[Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come (5/9/03).

Two style notes: [Eric Ru]dolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." ...[TO]DAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING (6/2/03).

Moody on Senator John Kerry (D-MA):

Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia. There's a near-meaningless primary in Illinois (3/16/04).

Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform (4/26/04).

John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican [sic] "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign (3/12/04).

Bill Clinton's book "My Life" may come out in time to let John Kerry have the spotlight by convention time. Then again, maybe it won't (4/27/04).

Moody on President George W. Bush:

[Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day (6/3/03).

Moody on the 9/11 Commission:

The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).

Remember that while there are obvious political implications for Bush, the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).

Moody on America's European "allies":

[At] the UN, Catherine Herridge will follow the US sponsored resolution calling [fo]r the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. Not surprisingly, we're facing [re]sistance from our erstwhile European buddies, the French and Germans (5/9/03).

[Bu]sh's G-8 trip is actually less important than his fledgling efforts to knock [t]ogether the Israeli and Palestinian PMs' heads. Let's keep in mind that the [G-]8 contains the most obstreperous dissidents against the war on terror. Bush [ha]s a long memory and new friends in Poland the rest of Eastern Europe (5/29/03).

Moody on what war footage to air and not air:

Five American GIs killed in Iraq in a bomb and an attack represent one of the grimmest days there in months. There is also footage of a mutilated body being dragged down a road which WE WILL NOT AIR UNTIL IT HAS BEEN CLEARED (3/31/04).

The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom (4/1/04).

Moody on Bush's tax cut:

[Th]e tax cut passed last night by the Senate, though less than half what Bush [or]iginally proposed, contains some important victories for the administration. [Th]e DC crew will parse the bill and explain how it will fatten -- marginally - [yo]ur wallet (5/22/03).

Moody on rising gas prices:

Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high to us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere (3/16/04).

Moody on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine) (3/24/04).
 

tadou

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
42
www.Tadou.com
#4
I'm reading...i really am...and the whole time, i'm saying "So, what?"

The best for last? 95% of that last post can be interpreted either way.

Right wing media? Just because John Kerry didn't get a unanimous bounce? And using hosts of apolitical (Fox and Friends), and opinion shows (Hannity and Colmes), instead of actual news shows? That is just low.
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
46
#5
^^^
Fox News showed its Republican colors last week by giving the Democratic convention short shrift. Fox News host Cal Thomas himself said: "I think if you're going to be there during prime time and if your whole reason for being there is to cover the convention, then you ought to, in fact, cover the convention" [1].

Instead of covering the convention, Fox covered it up. For instance, they aired just 45 seconds of former Vice President Al Gore's speech before cutting away to attack him. In sharp contrast, Fox's cable peers CNN and MSNBC showed viewers the full 13-minute speech. As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asked:


Whatever happened to "we report, you decide"? Shouldn't Fox viewers get to hear Gore before O'Reilly and his guests start sounding off? [2]

This is a disservice to Fox viewers, many of whom don't know what they're missing by relying on Fox. By writing a letter to our local papers, we can reach out to neighbors who count on Fox News for election coverage. Writing a letter to the editor doesn't actually take very long -- you can do it in ten minutes or less.

We've made it really easy for you, with talking points, sample letters, and a tool to find your local paper, at:

http://www.moveon.org/lte/lte.html?...=98102&id=3214-1336739-uQjdu_UwrrdYRUaMJaPR0w

Gore wasn't alone in getting the silent treatment from Fox. The network also interrupted former President Jimmy Carter and Senator Ted Kennedy to make room for the pundits. Ret. General Wesley Clark and Rev. Jesse Jackson were shut out entirely.

All in all, Fox News showed a quarter less of the Democratic Convention than CNN and a full third less than MSNBC [3]. Fox News insists its reporting is fair and balanced, but the numbers make plain that Fox shut out the Democrats to protect their Republican friends.

As Paul Krugman wrote in yesterday's New York Times, "Fox News is for all practical purposes a G.O.P. propaganda agency" [4]. Serious news networks give their viewers every opportunity to decide for themselves how to vote. Anything less is unfit for democracy. Our letters can inform our neighbors of the convention outrage on Fox.

Thank you for all that you do
Sincerely,
--Wes Boyd and Noah T. Winer
MoveOn.org
August 4th, 2004

Sources:
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126838,00.html
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32979-2004Aug1.html
[3] http://mediamatters.org/items/200408020002
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/opinion/03krug.html




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
70
#7
Fox and friends is not an apolitical show...it is very political....the political soundings coming off distinctly Republican...then again, that's every show on the FNC. You don't see it tadou, because you simply aren't looking.

Attacking bush is "Bush bashing", attacking Kerry is "pointing out flaws in his character". Kerry's voting record is "flip-flopping", Bush's changing decisions on health, the environment, education, and tariffs are "new information coming to light". Bush's go-it-alone stance is "strength", Kerry's approach to secure more allies is "pandering to the UN", even garnering the hilarious emotive headline "Kerry's french Ki$$" on FNC.
 

tadou

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
42
www.Tadou.com
#8
@W.D.
And you see too much when nothing exists. Why aren't you criticising Regis and Kelly for not covering the DNC enough? Why not criticise IMUS in the morning?

@Jomo

You are a tool....a big...flaming...tool if you think people were so glued to Fox news that they didnt realize there was non-stop, uninterrupted coverage of the convention on C-Span....not C-Span 2, which has less stations...but C-SPAN. For EVERY SINGLE TIME i have looked at the Basic/Extended cable list, C-Span is included in Basic, and Fox is NOT.

If people don't like to watch Fox's coverage (I thought it sucked), they can change the channel--I know I did.
 
Apr 25, 2002
5,500
12
38
47
#9
tadou said:
@W.D.
And you see too much when nothing exists. Why aren't you criticising Regis and Kelly for not covering the DNC enough? Why not criticise IMUS in the morning?

You know those shows are totally different than a news channel.

Do you really think Fox is fair and balanced?

Also, do you really think there isn't people out there who ONLY watch Fox News? There are people like that for every channel. Too bad the ones who are stuck on Fox get so misinformed. Or is it they don't wanna see fair and balanced news?
 

tadou

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
42
www.Tadou.com
#10
^^ You tell me, Mr Self-Fufilling Prophesy.


And Yes, they are on News stations, so they all deserve to be judged the same. Regis...Imus....Fox and Friends--All judged the same.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
70
#11
Regis is a joke. No one can expect to watch Regis and the blond bitch for detailed, legitimate news.

1. Fox news says it is "the most fair, the most trusted, the most unbiased"...lmao. A thick strain of Conservatism runs through every single fucking show on Fox News...From the way Sean Hannity announces the headlines and frames the stories on Hannity & Colmes, to the way Fox News has successfully turned liberal into a swear word, to the way Fox News puts out blatant distortions, like the "most liberal senator" thing, which was only based on 2003 votes, and of those, only based on a few key votes.

2. Regis, etc., are obviously somewhat opinionated. Fox News puts spin and opinion into its "News Briefs", its anchor stories, etc. A great example: "You Decide 2004", which has not, to this day, said one thing positive about Kerry. The amount of sarcasm and quip in Kerry stories is hilarious. "After 22 years in the public eye, a career as a senator, well known veteran against the Vietnam War, and career as lieutenant Governor, John Kerry is trying to introduce himself to the American people." Examples like that abound. The shit is hilarious. You don't see it, because you simply don't want to.
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
43
#12
WHITE DEVIL said:
Regis is a joke. No one can expect to watch Regis and the blond bitch for detailed, legitimate news.

1. Fox news says it is "the most fair, the most trusted, the most unbiased"...lmao. A thick strain of Conservatism runs through every single fucking show on Fox News...
and?

the most trusted.. it probably is. seeing as how there's more conservatives in this country than liberals... that would make sense, wouldnt it? and does it say in its slogan "the most unbiased"? or is that a white devil slip-in?
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
70
#13
That's not part of its slogan...that's something said by a pundit and echoed throughout the station. There are more conservatives in this country than liberals...then again the average American spends 1,500 hours a year watching TV and 80 reading a book, so I'm really not surprised.
 

tadou

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
42
www.Tadou.com
#14
^^ One day, you're going to link me to all of your Socialist/Liberal websites/sources, so i can pick up some of this cool shit you spout off.


Regis = Your Local Morning News = Fox and Friends.....they are all the same thing. If you want NEWS, read a newspaper. If you want news + opinions....watch television.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
70
#15
tadou said:
Regis = Your Local Morning News = Fox and Friends.....they are all the same thing. If you want NEWS, read a newspaper. If you want news + opinions....watch television.
No no...major newspapers are part of the "liberal media", you can ask Bill O'Reilly. And what are you, rolling over tadou? I thought you agreed that FNC was fair and balanced? You're constantly attacking me for saying it isn't...then you post this...
 

Spitz

Sicc OG
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
47
#18
Mcleanhatch said:
of all the people, you had to find the most Left leaning commie of all the reporters at the NYT, who by the way was a former Enron Advisor
i pasted 3 articals but thanxs for takeing 1 and ignoreing the other 2. nice try to spin it.
 

tadou

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
42
www.Tadou.com
#19
WHITE DEVIL said:
No no...major newspapers are part of the "liberal media", you can ask Bill O'Reilly. And what are you, rolling over tadou? I thought you agreed that FNC was fair and balanced? You're constantly attacking me for saying it isn't...then you post this...
Are you telling me that TV news isn't usually News+Opinion? And that newspapers don't have a great deal less opinion included with their news reports?


Newspapers = Have a news and editorial section.

Television = Combines the news and editorial sections.

Fox News = Combines news and editorials in the most Fair and Balanced way, affording the viewer the ability to decide for themselves.
 
Apr 25, 2002
5,500
12
38
47
#20
tadou said:
Fox News = Combines news and editorials in the most Fair and Balanced way, affording the viewer the ability to decide for themselves.
Come on now, even conservatives admit that Fox is biased. Are you blind and deaf? You really aren't that stupid to believe what you posted. Open your eyes.